I disagree. I think it would make it too easy for people to claim mission accomplished or act like it was a gun control compromise and let the NRA off the hook. Banning that particular rifle does nothing to address the issue and it’s my belief that wrangling over that is nothing but a distraction to allow everyone to avoid real reform.
When it comes to government, there’s almost always a ratchet effect. You can try, but you can’t get the votes to un-try once the experiment fails.
The AWB is an example of the rare exception: automatic sunset provisions.
Regarding that chart, I read that starting in 2011 the number of mass shootings tripled (and has stayed that way). What happened in 2011?
I don’t know. If only Republicans didn’t block the government from investigating why.
TL:DR. The serious research about the assault weapon showed a almost no impact on overall gun deaths, and it was inconclusive about mass shootings.
The only reason this chart exists, is because it uses a literally unique definition of a mass shooting of 6 plus victims. every other organization that collects data, FBI, Mother Jones, Washington Post etc. defines a mass shoot as either 3 or 4 deaths some include the death of the shooter and other exclude him.
Thank you for the link. Good analysis, and I’ll refrain from using this example going forward.
You have to focus on something, to make a start on the problem. Since AR-15s are unnecessary for hunting and self defense, and are impossible to use for concealed-carry, and since their design is meant to appeal to people who fantasize about assault rifles, they are easier targets for regulation than many other weapons.
Of course what we should really do is ban all guns except those that are carefully vetted for special purposes for people who really need them. Which is to say police, soldiers, and rangers, with perhaps some shotguns allowed for ranchers defending their flocks and herds. But of course that is politically impossible.
I’d also ban sport hunting entirely, but since that’s not politically feasible any more than my general ban is, I supposed I’d bend a bit to allow bolt-action rifles for those who take such pleasure in killing animals that they refuse to give up their repellent pastime.
And in case anyone mentions it, I don’t believe any American really has to hunt for food. In the unlikely event someone can demonstrate that need, the enormous savings in public funds for emergency services, burials and murder investigations under my proposed ban will be able to pay for free meals for those poor people a hundred times over.
The problem is you just make an AR-16 or change up the name entirely and we have the exact same problem. Barring that specific model does nothing at all, so it’s not making a start on the problem. It’s the illusion of doing something about the problem.
We ban automatic weapons, we don’t just ban the M249. Doing the latter would be pointless if someone could shoot up a school with a dozen other fully automatic weapons. If we deem the AR-15 is too dangerous for civilians to own, we need to identify what makes it too dangerous and ban that.
If you can’t ban all the assault weapons, ban the most visible one. It won’t fix anything, but (unfortunately) soon enough you’ll get another shot at the discussion, and it will eventually move beyond just banning one weapon.
The AR-15 isn’t a model, really, it’s a type of gun based on a particular frame. But yes, I would ban “semiautomatic rifles and carbines” along with all extended magazines.
The problem is that is just as easy to for gun manufacturers to turn an “assault rifle” into a semi-automatic pistol in real life as it is in Fallout 4. You change the barrel into a shorter barrel (8.9999 ") and change the stock into a pistol grip Viola you have a gun that shoots a high velocity .223 or .7.62 MM round. The recoil is low so it pretty easy to accurately shoot 50 or 60 rounds in a minute. I suppose dropping the magazine capacity from 20 to 10 might help but with practice can swap out a magazine in a second or so.
For all the shooting except the Las Vegas one the reduced accuracy from a shorter barrel, less stable shooting positions, just isn’t going to make a big difference when you are shooting people in a classroom or a nightclub.
As I pointed out before the Pulse nightclub shooter, used a combination of Glock, a Sig Saur MCX rifle to kill everyone. Sig already makes a pistol version of the same weapon.
So anything less than a ban on all semi-automatics weapon will be pretty much symbolic since determined shooter will be able to get there hands on something equally effective.
I personally suspect that’s where some people are leaning. I just doubt it’s reached a threshold where anything is going to happen.
Yeah, it’s a problem. In the “politically feasible” spectrum, however, of course semiautomatic pistols of the usual sort can’t be banned. But I suppose someone could come up with numbers for effective rate of fire and so on to at least limit the weapons to something more like ordinary carnage rather than massacre.
It’s all fantasy talk anyway until the NRA is banned or until Congress purges itself of graft, neither of which is going to happen without a revolution.
A ban on all semiautomatics is absolutely the way to go. There is no possible purpose for home defense, self defense, hunting or target shooting that can’t be served by a revolver, a shotgun, or a bolt-action rifle.
It’s probably not politically ‘feasible,’ but part of long-term agitation is to stretch, over time, the scope of what is politically feasible.
So yeah, ban 'em all. And fuck 'em in the ear. And fuck 'em in the other ear.
But that makes no sense. If you ban all semiautomatic weapons then fewer children could be killed during the next shooting.
I’m sorry but this is crap. There is no logical one you can claim on one hand that assault rifle or a semi-automatic pistol are so dangerous that should be banned, and then not concede that they are in fact excellent home or self-defense weapons.
If two or three armed guys break into my house to rob me, kill me, rape my wife, or kidnap my child. I’m pretty much fucked if I have double barrel shotgun and my first shot misses the same thing is true with a bolt action. If I have revolver, AND I’m skilled marksman ANDI got lucky maybe I can defend my family. But if I’ve got AR-15 or a big Glock with 17+ round magazine. I can start blazing away, even if I don’t hit anybody the surprise value will likely deter all but the most determined of home invaders. Get them to leave my house is just as good as killing them.
Given that 60% of people buy guns for protection, it is undeniable that exactly the same characteristic that make an AR-15 good for killing lots of people in short period of time make it equally good for defending oneself and your family. We can also disagree about how often guns are used for home defense and how effective they are but it quite clear that for every mass shooting in America there are orders of magnitude more use of guns to defend a home.
I don’t agree with David French about this community stuff. But everything else he says rings true.
While I obviously don’t have statistics to prove it (damn that lack of gun research) I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of total rounds fired during mass shootings from large capacity guns far exceeds the number of rounds fired by the same type of guns in home defense, per year. I’m almost 100% sure that’s the case for average rounds fired per incident (mass shooting v. home defense).
I also highly suspect that most home defense incidents involving actual discharge of a legal firearm (as opposed to brandishing) involved firing off only a small number of rounds. Contrary to what you see in the movies, para-military home invasions are a very small thing.
Holding out the need for a Taken-style scenario as justification why we need a huge number of high-capacity firearms is unreasonable.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t want you to be able to defend your family with a gun.
Because on average, the generic you is more likely to shoot their family than ever to get into a situation where they have to defend them with a gun. So sure, you personally might be that responsible person who somehow keeps their gun in a locked safe and also has it instantly available for home defense purposes and will never be so unhinged as to use it for any other reason but on the firing range. But generally speaking it’s far more damaging to society for guns to exist at all because irresponsible people will also have access to them. Conceivably with thorough vetting and pervasive background checks and having to meet strict ownership and skill standards with tests every year, and with any domestic complaint whatsoever causing people to lose their guns, ownership might be less damaging. But a full ban is much easier, and except for fantasy home intrusion scenarios that realistically will never happen, no one would suffer as a result.
And of course an autoloading pistol is better for home defense than a revolver. And a fully automatic weapon is no doubt better yet. But we don’t allow those even today. It’s just a question of what level of gun ownership does the least damage to the citizenship of the country as a whole. IMO the appropriate level rounds down to zero.
The ESA now says it will attend President Trump’s meeting at the White House on March 8th to discuss violent videogames and their impact on vulnerable young minds.
Video games are enjoyed around the world and numerous authorities and reputable scientific studies have found no connection between games and real-life violence. Like all Americans, we are deeply concerned about the level of gun violence in the United States. Video games are plainly not the issue: entertainment is distributed and consumed globally, but the US has an exponentially higher level of gun violence than any other nation.
The upcoming meeting at the White House, which ESA will attend, will provide the opportunity to have a fact-based conversation about video game ratings, our industry’s commitment to parents, and the tools we provide to make informed entertainment choices.
You forgot that they’re black. Isn’t that the NRA storyline?
Disgraceful. ESA should be ashamed.